Can i work in a school with a criminal record?
Comments
-
DVardysShadow wrote: »
I think that the CRB here has been misused for something way beyond the original intent. It does no one any favours.
The thing is that it is a judgement call by the governors on behalf of the school, and they are accountable for that decision. So, where individually and personally (if it was their own business) they may take the "risk", collectively they have to err on the side of caution as governors and think of the children in their care. It may not be fair, but our litigious society makes this the wise course of action to take.0 -
I think that the point is being somewhat missed here. Whilst it is within the power of the employer to decide not to take this conviction into account, they must look at all the circumstances, not just how long ago the conviction was. The OP may well be open to talking to people about the conviction, but if he does so in the way that he has done in his post, then it is not about remorse - it is about not recognising the seriousness of his crime or that it matters too much. There is a difference between apologetic and apologistic. I have utterly no problems with schools or anyone else employing people with criminal records, but I would have a problem if the message that person was peddling about their conviction is that "it's unfair because it was only a little bit of stolen goods and that shouldn't matter".0
-
I think that the point is being somewhat missed here. Whilst it is within the power of the employer to decide not to take this conviction into account, they must look at all the circumstances, not just how long ago the conviction was. The OP may well be open to talking to people about the conviction, but if he does so in the way that he has done in his post, then it is not about remorse - it is about not recognising the seriousness of his crime or that it matters too much. There is a difference between apologetic and apologistic. I have utterly no problems with schools or anyone else employing people with criminal records, but I would have a problem if the message that person was peddling about their conviction is that "it's unfair because it was only a little bit of stolen goods and that shouldn't matter".
In actuality though and from experience I doubt that his "demeanour" had a bearing on the end result, as to most of those involved it would just be hearsay, they would not have heard it from him personally as most governors have little day to day contact with staff. It may have been communicated to them by the head or it may not have been mentioned at all. I
I suspect it was a simple case of those who had concerns ( about the conviction) won the day over those who were prepared to look past it. The plain truth is that in terms of employment it is a buyers market, and if there are other candidates equally competent most schools would go with one of them.0 -
A big thank you to all of you who have posted, I am amazed at the your comments. To get things straight it was HR who instructed the Head to dismiss me as there was no hearing with the Head and Governors. The Chair and vice Governors are taking this up with HR as I speak but due to the holidays the Head is not back. I was taken on as self employed but checking case law, I was an employeee.
I totally agree that the Head and Governors had the overall say but this was not the position. HR made the decision. The Head 4 days after asked me to re apply in september when the job is re advertised. Does not make sense to me. Sorry about my attitude of my conviction but thats a whole different story. At the time computers were big business and I had one of the fastest growing companies in the UK. All I will say on the matter is my experience of the , was their were the biggest thieves I have ever know.
HR have taken the view that being self employed, they could dismiss me without warning. However, HMRC and ACAS have confirmed that I was an employee but this would mean taking the School to court which my problem is not with them. The HR in question are going in april 2012 which says a lot about them.
I did say my wife works at the school for 20 years and I did tell my line manager about my conviction, but the view was it was years ago and nothing to do with what I was doing.
It has got to me that HR can sack someone without even listening to any kind of mitigation. To make matters worse, I recently wrote to the ex offenders department of the Authority to see if they could help and what did they do? they sent my letter to them straight to HR and I received a reply yesterday from the HR department.
Surely this is a breach of trust. How can a department I am asking help from send a confidental letter to the department I wish to complain about. The way I am reading your replies is that HR are only there to advise where as in this case they instructed the Head to get rid of me, This came direct from the business manager who sat in the meeting. His words were, if the advice was not acted on the school was on its own.
I am taking the HR letter to my solicitors tomorrow to start a formal complaint but it gets to me that not only have I lost a job but the improvements I made in a short time will stop.
thanks again and please keep your views coming as I am looking for that little bit of information that could help me get back.
cheers0 -
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Business Manager, that the school will have been advised that they would be on their own if they continued with your employment. So many challenges are made against many large organisations that we all err on the side of caution nowadays. I am sorry but HR have not "sacked you", the school is probably trying to put the blame on their doorstep because ultimately the Board of Governors have the final say. It is probably a very awkward for the school especially has your wife is employed at the same school.
I can see why your upset with the handling of your enquiry to the ex-offenders dept but I do feel you should move on from this as I see very little gain from the challenge.0 -
I would have to say that I am seriously concerned about this school. Anyone, self-employed or not, must have an eCRB in place. Even contractors visiting on a short term basis. And quite correctly - this was employment not self-employment. Perhaps HR are fed up of them constantly being blase about the law???0
-
The position is that of a school caretaker. As in someone who takes care of the school buildings and is in possession of keys and has access to all areas including all the equipment located on said school premises. I would have imagined, were a school caretaker to be in possession of a criminal conviction for theft, handling stolen goods, or something similar, that this would be the kind of 'material fact' that has to be disclosed to whichever insurance company has undertaken to provide the school with contents insurance. I also imagine that the reaction of the insurance company to this news would be to either jack up the premium or decline cover.
I'd therefore conclude that a criminal conviction for handling stolen goods might well indeed be 'relevant to the job' of being a school caretaker. I'd also say that I'm doubtful that HR 'made the decision' to terminate employment - no sensible organisation allows HR to make decisions, they're not really qualified for that sort of thing - HR are most likely simply following policy and, as suggested above being used as scapegoats for the 'decision', simply because they've relayed it down the chain of command.0 -
tigeress289 wrote: »The way I am reading your replies is that HR are only there to advise where as in this case they instructed the Head to get rid of me, This came direct from the business manager who sat in the meeting. His words were, if the advice was not acted on the school was on its own.
HR have not sacked you, they have advised the school to do so and made it plain that if they do not any repercussions down the line are theirs and theirs alone, hence the school has decided to act on the advice given.
They are not bound to do so, they have made a choice. If it has not gone to governors (which it may not "officially" have to as the head has day to day authority to take decisions on staffing matters) it will certainly have been informally discussed with a section of the GB and their opinions sought.
I really don't think you will get any further with this, as ultimately who a school employs is their decision provided they act within the law.0 -
DVardysShadow wrote: »That is the same argument that keeps wrongly convicted people in prison for the whole sentence without remission because they won't admit the crime they were convicted of.
.
I do appreciate that and thought of it as I typed my reply. However, that isn't the case for the OP who admits the offence but still seems to be making excuses for it rather than admitting full responsibility.0 -
Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I think the OP SHOULD have had an eCRB in place, but visiting tradesmen wouldn't IMO need one, because they shouldn't ever be left unsupervised with the children.I would have to say that I am seriously concerned about this school. Anyone, self-employed or not, must have an eCRB in place. Even contractors visiting on a short term basis.
Plus, if the OP was regarded as self-employed, he couldn't have got one done on himself.
It sounds to me as if the school's policies and procedures are a complete and utter mess.Signature removed for peace of mind0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards